In a recent opinion piece published by the Washington Examiner and republished by MSN, Argentum President and CEO James Balda argues that America spent decades building for the Baby Boom generation, and now must prepare for their aging years with the same level of commitment and planning.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I moved three of our children into college, and I was struck by how move-in day is a remarkable piece of choreography, and none of it is by accident.
Someone built the dormitories. Someone staffed the health center, dining hall, and counseling office. Someone trained the people who will teach these students and look after them over the next four years.
America built much of that infrastructure on purpose.
In 1950, the federal government created a loan program specifically to finance college dormitories. Eight years later, the National Defense Education Act put federal resources behind the people who would teach them — signed by the same president, in the same decade in which Washington committed itself to building the interstate highway system.
These investments were different in form but similar in ambition. America looked at a generation coming of age and decided to build for it.
That generation is now turning 80.
The oldest baby boomers are hitting that milestone this year. Their aging coincides with three of the country’s most urgent challenges: housing affordability, healthcare capacity, and workforce development. Senior living sits at the intersection of all three, yet public policy rarely treats it that way.
Start with housing.
When an older American moves into a senior living community, that person has found a new right home for themselves, and very often a family home is returned to the market behind them. At a time when the country is struggling with housing supply, senior living is purpose-built housing for one of the fastest-growing segments of the population.
Yet policy often treats senior living as something other than housing. Federal support comes through the healthcare door as loan insurance, not the tax credits that build housing, and local zoning codes can treat senior living as conditional use rather than housing by right — which quietly decides whether the next community gets built.
Senior living is also part of the nation’s care infrastructure.
Not a hospital, not a nursing home — senior living is a specifically designed community where seniors create a new home for themselves free from many of the stresses of living alone and that distinction is the whole point. It’s where independence lasts longer because you no longer need to manage a house, a car, and your own health alone. It’s a community where meals are shared instead of skipped, where a neighbor or team member notices how you are, and where there is a reason to get up in the morning and engage socially. There is somewhere to go, and someone is expecting you.
That social infrastructure matters. It can help older adults remain independent while providing support before their needs become medical crises. Yet much of senior living operates outside the healthcare system even as it helps families manage needs that otherwise can end up in more intensive and expensive settings.
Then there is the workforce.
Senior living supports nearly 2 million jobs in every congressional district in the country. The work itself cannot be offshored or automated away, does not require a four-year degree to start, and offers a clear path to a meaningful career in healthcare, hospitality, or management, to name a few. The industry supports a vast range of jobs nationwide: caregivers, nurses, chefs, maintenance workers, drivers, salespeople, and community leaders.
And the demand for workers is only increasing. Industry projections estimate that senior living will need to fill more than 3 million job openings by 2040. That is not a staffing problem, it is a national workforce development opportunity.
The policy debates over housing, healthcare, and jobs usually happen in silos. Aging and senior living specifically connect them all.
The question isn’t whether government should run senior living communities or dictate where Americans spend their later years. It is whether public policy should stop making it unnecessarily difficult to build housing, train workers, develop care infrastructure, plus create financial pathways for seniors and their families to decide what is best for themselves.
Seventy-five years ago, America understood something important. Demography isn’t merely something that happens to a country. It is something a country can prepare for.
We funded dormitories, highways, and education because we decided a generation mattered enough to invest in.
That generation is turning 80.
We should be just as deliberate about building for what comes next.